PA. Mohammed, J.

"The one who decides must hear". This is a sacred rule forming part of principles of natural justice. The aptness of this percept to the present context requires trenchant consideration. The decision in Union of India v. Andrew (1996 (1) KLT 133) handed down by the Division Bench forming one of us a party anatomized the above concept with some elaborateness. What we are impelled here is to have a closer outlook on it with reference to a facet which we call seeming justice'. It is a cardinal principle of our judicial system that a case should be decided by the authority hearing the arguments and that a successor cannot decide a case without hearing the arguments afresh on the ground that arguments have already been advanced before his predecessor who left the case without deciding it himself," so said by the Division Bench in Andrew's case (supra).

2. Ext. P5 order dated 28.8.1997 passed by the Additional Secretary (Sri. K. Rajendran) has been challenged by the appellant in the Writ Petition wherefrom the present. Writ Appeal arose. By the said order, the Government found that the appellant was personally liable for the loss of Rs. 48.602/- sustained by it